Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 bullyboy wrote:
So when is this coherency check taken?

The implication in the article is that it happens in the morale phase, after the morale checks and any models are removed by failing the morale check and attrition rolls.

yukishiro1 wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.

Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).

Incredibly sensible rule.

It's really not this simple once you start getting into tables with terrain and enemy models on them. It absolutely doesn't "just stop conga lining." Put some models on large bases on a table and start fiddling around, you'll see how much this can muck up movement of 6-model units on large bases. 60mm bases in particular are really screwed - even putting 6 models in a straight line base-to-base doesn't keep them in coherency because 60mm is bigger than 2". This severely limits your movement options with these units, for no real reason.

I agree it's less of a problem for true horde units on smaller bases, though it will still result in weird situations there too where you aren't able to make legitimate, non-conga-line moves you ought to be able to make.

I wouldn't mind seeing the game move away from maximum efficiency spamming because the actual terrain/battlefield prohibits efficient on paper uses. Brings in more strategy. Gamble on your most effective unit size and unit spamming vs effectively being able maneuver it around the table.

Might end up seeing both small units, decreasing lethality. And we might see a little more variance in armies with people trying new things out or having the points to add new things

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Not sure I like the coherency change.
I get that it solves conga lines, but moving hordes around just got a lot more finicky.

Say you have a unit of 30 orks. With the new change, you now have to make sure that every orks is within 2" of 2 more orks, or else you will take casualties.

This means that every time you move them, you have to do a head count and measure to make sure that you aren't going to take extra losses at the end of the phase.

Yeah, this is another unintended consequence. We got rid of blast markers because it took too long to move stuff in a way to minimize exposure, but now we have a similar mechanic with hordes. Yes, you can just put them in a huge blob of base-to-base models and not worry about it - but then you lose the benefits of spreading out. So what this rule encourages is just what the blast rule encouraged - taking a ton of time to move a unit to maximize its units footprint, but while still keeping each model within 2" of each other one.

 bullyboy wrote:
So when is this coherency check taken?

Morale phase (just before end of turn). Its weird that it doesn't say it outright, but the bullet points in the GSC article do. Presumably the check has some sort of context in the rules for the morale phase, since the text starts as if its in some sort of sequence (Each player must now...)

Even weirder is that the rule specifies that each player is removing models but the bullet points just says 'your army,' which implies just whoever's turn it is.

IanVanCheese wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.

Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).

Incredibly sensible rule.

Take snipers
Knock out 2-3 models in center...
No longer in coherency unit means half of remaining die

gungo wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.

Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).

Incredibly sensible rule.

Take snipers
Knock out 2-3 models in center...
No longer in coherency unit means half of remaining die

Not how snipers work. Except the Death Jester for morale losses.

IanVanCheese wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Not sure I like the coherency change.
I get that it solves conga lines, but moving hordes around just got a lot more finicky.

Say you have a unit of 30 orks. With the new change, you now have to make sure that every orks is within 2" of 2 more orks, or else you will take casualties.

This means that every time you move them, you have to do a head count and measure to make sure that you aren't going to take extra losses at the end of the phase.

I know the community is known for being a bit not sensible, but this should really be a common sense implementation of these rules. If you're dudes are most clumped up and one dude is 2.1" from the second guy in his squad, only an absolute burk would try to enforce it.

I don't agree with this at all. The game rules are doubling down on enforcing this, and explicitly killing off models that aren't in coherency. No one's being 'a burk' for playing the game by the rules when they're writing multiple paragraphs of rules text to eliminate models that aren't in formation. Its literally the RAI and RAW. You might as well say that a 4 to hit is good enough for the 30th ork, just because its being a burk to think that all of them need 5+ to hit.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.

Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).

Incredibly sensible rule.

It's really not this simple once you start getting into tables with terrain and enemy models on them. It absolutely doesn't "just stop conga lining." Put some models on large bases on a table and start fiddling around, you'll see how much this can muck up movement of 6-model units on large bases. 60mm bases in particular are really screwed - even putting 6 models in a straight line base-to-base doesn't keep them in coherency because 60mm is bigger than 2". This severely limits your movement options with these units, for no real reason.

I agree it's less of a problem for true horde units on smaller bases, though it will still result in weird situations there too where you aren't able to make legitimate, non-conga-line moves you ought to be able to make.

I wouldn't mind seeing the game move away from maximum efficiency spamming because the actual terrain/battlefield prohibits efficient on paper uses. Brings in more strategy. Gamble on your most effective unit size and unit spamming vs effectively being able maneuver it around the table.

Might end up seeing both small units, decreasing lethality. And we might see a little more variance in armies with people trying new things out or having the points to add new things

I don't necessarily disagree, but this is a stupid way to accomplish that, by deploying an arbitrary rule to screw people for taking certain unit sizes in a way that doesn't make any sense. It shouldn't cripple your unit's ability to maneuver to go from 5 models to 6. That doesn't make any sense.

If they really wanted to address conga lines there were a lot of other ways they could have done it that wouldn't result in these sorts of strange, illogical consequences. Not to mention that you actually still can conga-line with the really big units - a unit of 30 can still double-conga a vast distance, for example, which still feels like a stupid abuse of the game rules. Why are a line of two guys holding hands 2" from the next pair of hand-holders acceptable, but a single line of 6 60mm models base-to-base to thread through a gap is not? And why should a unit of 5 be much better at conga-lining than a unit of 6? That is the definition of illogical.

Am I missing something but do the “performing actions” rule and the “”raise the Banners High” mission objective contradict each other?

Raise the banners high - “one or more infantry units can perform this action at the end of your movement phase.”

Performing actions - “The same action cannot be started by more than one unit from your army in the same battle round.”

Aash wrote:
Am I missing something but do the “performing actions” rule and the “”raise the Banners High” mission objective contradict each other?

Raise the banners high - “one or more infantry units can perform this action at the end of your movement phase.”

Performing actions - “The same action cannot be started by more than one unit from your army in the same battle round.”

It does. Pretty clearly what they are trying to say is that you can only hoist one banner per objective, but RAW the general rule on actions does prohibit it, even though the specific one allows it.

Aash wrote:
Am I missing something but do the “performing actions” rule and the “”raise the Banners High” mission objective contradict each other?

Raise the banners high - “one or more infantry units can perform this action at the end of your movement phase.”

Performing actions - “The same action cannot be started by more than one unit from your army in the same battle round.”

It is odd, but I'm going to assume its one of those specific vs general cases; generally only one unit can do it, but in this specific case multiple units can.

Specific overrides general, so the scenario rule will take precedence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, the response of most players is just going to be to never take units of more than 5 because they're afraid it'll result in their squads disappearing magically (doesn't count as fleeing or being destroyed, they just go poof! as if they were never there!) because they got out of coherency.

Or you could just remove casualties in a sensible way and not have that happen. Seriously, it just stops conga lining, it doesn't make it so someone can kill three models and trigger a chain reaction the obliterates your entire horde (unless you're being super dumb).

Incredibly sensible rule.

It's really not this simple once you start getting into tables with terrain and enemy models on them. It absolutely doesn't "just stop conga lining." Put some models on large bases on a table and start fiddling around, you'll see how much this can muck up movement of 6-model units on large bases. 60mm bases in particular are really screwed - even putting 6 models in a straight line base-to-base doesn't keep them in coherency because 60mm is bigger than 2". This severely limits your movement options with these units, for no real reason.

I agree it's less of a problem for true horde units on smaller bases, though it will still result in weird situations there too where you aren't able to make legitimate, non-conga-line moves you ought to be able to make.

I wouldn't mind seeing the game move away from maximum efficiency spamming because the actual terrain/battlefield prohibits efficient on paper uses. Brings in more strategy. Gamble on your most effective unit size and unit spamming vs effectively being able maneuver it around the table.

Might end up seeing both small units, decreasing lethality. And we might see a little more variance in armies with people trying new things out or having the points to add new things

I don't necessarily disagree, but this is a stupid way to accomplish that, by deploying an arbitrary rule to screw people for taking certain unit sizes in a way that doesn't make any sense. It shouldn't cripple your unit's ability to maneuver to go from 5 models to 6. That doesn't make any sense.

If they really wanted to address conga lines there were a lot of other ways they could have done it that wouldn't result in these sorts of strange, illogical consequences. Not to mention that you actually still can conga-line with the really big units - a unit of 30 can still double-conga a vast distance, for example, which still feels like a stupid abuse of the game rules. Why are a line of two guys holding hands 2" from the next pair of hand-holders acceptable, but a single line of 6 60mm models base-to-base to thread through a gap is not? And why should a unit of 5 be much better at conga-lining than a unit of 6? That is the definition of illogical.

Meh, nothing an eratta making it not apply above a certain base size won't fix.

Aash wrote:
Am I missing something but do the “performing actions” rule and the “”raise the Banners High” mission objective contradict each other?

Raise the banners high - “one or more infantry units can perform this action at the end of your movement phase.”

Performing actions - “The same action cannot be started by more than one unit from your army in the same battle round.”

I think they were going for the same action on the same thing. You could, for example, raise banners on the three different objectives with three different units, but you couldn't have three units 'raise banners' on the same objective.

If that's what they were going for it needs to be more clear, however, because as it stands you can't search Objective Sites B and F at the same time with different units.

Voss wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Not sure I like the coherency change.
I get that it solves conga lines, but moving hordes around just got a lot more finicky.

Say you have a unit of 30 orks. With the new change, you now have to make sure that every orks is within 2" of 2 more orks, or else you will take casualties.

This means that every time you move them, you have to do a head count and measure to make sure that you aren't going to take extra losses at the end of the phase.

I know the community is known for being a bit not sensible, but this should really be a common sense implementation of these rules. If you're dudes are most clumped up and one dude is 2.1" from the second guy in his squad, only an absolute burk would try to enforce it.

I don't agree with this at all. The game rules are doubling down on enforcing this, and explicitly killing off models that aren't in coherency. No one's being 'a burk' for playing the game by the rules when they're writing multiple paragraphs of rules text to eliminate models that aren't in formation. Its literally the RAI and RAW. You might as well say that a 4 to hit is good enough for the 30th ork, just because its being a burk to think that all of them need 5+ to hit.

I would disagree, I think the point they were more trying to make was that if a unit's 2.1" out of coherency, there was obviously a good faith attempt to keep it in coherency and generally only a total wad would "gotcha" the guy who made the goof. It would be like watching an opposing player explicitly positioning a model just so so that they're not visible to target, but then targeting them anyway because a couple molecules of their elbow is visible from a certain angle and you didn't say anything.

Technically RAW? Yes.

Being an absolute turd about what's supposed to be a fun game? Yup.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Rinkydink wrote:
Conga line is dead. New coherency rules.

Behold, a totally not a daisy chain/conga line!

Spoiler:

This new rule did quite literally nothing except prevent coherency from ground level to 2nd floor of standard 3" floor ruins.

Not true. It certainly makes AdMech players think hard about brining 6 Ballistari instead of 5

Yeah it's a massive mess of a rule that prevents 6 man units of stuff with large bases from moving in very natural ways, crippling those units compared to the same unit with 5 models instead.

I encourage everyone to put down some 40 or 60mm bases on a table and try moving them around with terrain and enemy models to limit your movement options, to realize just how much of a mess this rule is. There are all sorts of times you will want to make a completely normal move - nothing like a conga line - and simply not be able to do so because of the arbitrary nerf to coherency you take from a 6th model.

But in 9th, you weren't taking a 6th model anyway because that bumps up all of your opponent's blast weapons. I think it's obvious what they want unit size to be. I've already pared down my lists to include 5 of what I used to include 6 of.

Noticed that you can't be in Engagement Range to *start* an action, but being put *into* Engagement Range doesn't cause the action to fail. So a unit attempting to complete an action that is consolidated into won't have their action interrupted unless they're destroyed.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/29/this-weekend-indomitus-face-off/

So this is happening. Not a full battle report, but a 'face off' of various units.

Amazingly, 3 meltaguys with 24" assault melta weapons that can double tap can kill two melee necron models.
But if they're magically in combat, gravis armor 'stands up like paper.' Except... looking at the math... not really. 6 attacks, 4 hit, S5 vs T5 so 2 wound, save is reduced to 4+, so 1 wound. Gosh, that 9 wound unit is _really_ threatened. Add the pistols in and they might kill a dude. In a weird universe where getting a 5" move model into melee combat is a reasonable thing.

As a preview of things to see on Saturday, that's really not engaging.

Question fro the 2.1" crowd:
If someone is moving 30 orks around, without movement trays to assist with that, would you ask/suggest they check the units coherency before they finish the move for the sake of keeping the game state clean and not being 'that guy'?

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Question fro the 2.1" crowd:
If someone is moving 30 orks around, without movement trays to assist with that, would you ask/suggest they check the units coherency before they finish the move for the sake of keeping the game state clean and not being 'that guy'?

I think the alternative is measuring them yourself, which is absolutely being "that guy".

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Meh, nothing an eratta making it not apply above a certain base size won't fix.

1. Rules shouldn't need Day 1 Erratas. That's the sign of a badly written rule.

2. The solution to a badly-written rule isn't to just exempt some stuff from it completely. This is another sign of a badly-written rule.

If they wanted to prevent units from spreading out too far across the board, there were much easier ways to do it than this. The most obvious would be simply to put a maximum limit on how far one model in a unit can be from any other model in the unit. For example, every model in a unit must fit within a 15" circle (this is roughly the size a unit of 5 can conga line to on 32mm bases - but you could set this at whatever you want, it could be 12" if you want to force units to cluster more, it could be 18" if you're ok with them spreading out more). This is super easy to check, because all you have to do is create a circle template of the appropriate size and slap it down on the table, and it tells you whether your unit is moving in an acceptable way or not. Boom, conga-lining across space is eliminated, but in a way that doesn't screw legitimate movement for smaller units. No need for this finicky "2" within at least two other models" thing, you just use the normal 2" coherency rules. No traps for the unwary. Just a simple, easy-to-verify check on whether a unit has spread out too much.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Question fro the 2.1" crowd:
If someone is moving 30 orks around, without movement trays to assist with that, would you ask/suggest they check the units coherency before they finish the move for the sake of keeping the game state clean and not being 'that guy'?

I always double check my unit coherence. I see no reason why I wouldn't expect my opponent to do the same.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Noticed that you can't be in Engagement Range to *start* an action, but being put *into* Engagement Range doesn't cause the action to fail. So a unit attempting to complete an action that is consolidated into won't have their action interrupted unless they're destroyed.

Right, and if they want to complete their action, they'll have to fight. No Falling Back either. I like the Performing Actions aspect of the game. I think it will add an interesting new wrinkle.

Voss wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/29/this-weekend-indomitus-face-off/

So this is happening. Not a full battle report, but a 'face off' of various units.

Amazingly, 3 meltaguys with 24" assault melta weapons that can double tap can kill two melee necron models.

As a preview of things to see on Saturday, that's really not engaging.

From the article, the blurb in question you're cherry picking:
"We played out a clash between these two units as a sample of what you can expect on Saturday. The Eradicators, well, eradicated the Cryptothralls. Easily. At range they didn’t stand a chance. Total Obliteration is nasty. So we brought them back, gave them a Plasmancer for good measure, and got them into combat… where those improved characteristics and scythed limbs saw the Cryptothralls tear through Gravis armour and flesh alike. Top tip: get your Cryptothralls in close and keep a Cryptek nearby. Space Marines players: shoot them. Shoot them quickly."

Gee it's almost like the Murderbuckets slice up the Marines should they have gotten into melee somehow. Funny that, especially since the Marines have 0 close combat weapons that matter here.

I think the alternative is measuring them yourself, which is absolutely being "that guy".

At that point you're intentionally slowing down the game. Which means you are being 'that guy' yes.
What I'm suggesting is being friendly enough to remind your opponent with the large block about something. It will help them and keep the game flowing cleaner overall.

Voss wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/29/this-weekend-indomitus-face-off/

So this is happening. Not a full battle report, but a 'face off' of various units.

Amazingly, 3 meltaguys with 24" assault melta weapons that can double tap can kill two melee necron models.
But if they're magically in combat, gravis armor 'stands up like paper.' Except... looking at the math... not really. 6 attacks, 4 hit, S5 vs T5 so 2 wound, save is reduced to 4+, so 1 wound. Gosh, that 9 wound unit is _really_ threatened. Add the pistols in and they might kill a dude. In a weird universe where getting a 5" move model into melee combat is a reasonable thing.

As a preview of things to see on Saturday, that's really not engaging.

Honestly the new Melta guys aren't that broken. The issue is Melta being garbage in general. Now, would I have made it so their weapon is Heavy or that they can't advance and shoot with the weapon? Probably.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Question fro the 2.1" crowd:
If someone is moving 30 orks around, without movement trays to assist with that, would you ask/suggest they check the units coherency before they finish the move for the sake of keeping the game state clean and not being 'that guy'?

A few times, sure. Especially at the start of a new edition. And doubly so for new players.

But by the time players are bragging on about how 'expert' they are and have played hundreds of games in 9th, and by turn 3 they're still doing it? No.

Now, to be fair, the Thralls are less than half the price of the Eradicators. While one could argue the overall lethality of the game is too high and you shouldn't be one-shotting units like that, in this case, it's not a huge deal.

Also to be fair, Eradicators are bonkers. It's just that this matchup doesn't really show it. Especially since it'd take 2-3 turns for the Thralls to wipe them in close combat, even with a Cryptek nearby.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Meh, nothing an eratta making it not apply above a certain base size won't fix.

1. Rules shouldn't need Day 1 Erratas. That's the sign of a badly written rule.

2. The solution to a badly-written rule isn't to just exempt some stuff from it completely. This is another sign of a badly-written rule.

If they wanted to prevent units from spreading out too far across the board, there were much easier ways to do it than this. The most obvious would be simply to put a maximum limit on how far one model in a unit can be from any other model in the unit. For example, every model in a unit must fit within a 15" circle (this is roughly the size a unit of 5 can conga line to on 32mm bases - but you could set this at whatever you want, it could be 12" if you want to force units to cluster more, it could be 18" if you're ok with them spreading out more). This is super easy to check, because all you have to do is create a circle template of the appropriate size and slap it down on the table, and it tells you whether your unit is moving in an acceptable way or not. Boom, conga-lining across space is eliminated, but in a way that doesn't screw legitimate movement for smaller units. No need for this finicky "2" within at least two other models" thing, you just use the normal 2" coherency rules. No traps for the unwary. Just a simple, easy-to-verify check on whether a unit has spread out too much.

Agreed on all points. I think we simply disagree on where the bar of expectation should be set with GW.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

Voss wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/29/this-weekend-indomitus-face-off/

So this is happening. Not a full battle report, but a 'face off' of various units.

Amazingly, 3 meltaguys with 24" assault melta weapons that can double tap can kill two melee necron models.

As a preview of things to see on Saturday, that's really not engaging.

From the article, the blurb in question you're cherry picking:
"We played out a clash between these two units as a sample of what you can expect on Saturday. The Eradicators, well, eradicated the Cryptothralls. Easily. At range they didn’t stand a chance. Total Obliteration is nasty. So we brought them back, gave them a Plasmancer for good measure, and got them into combat… where those improved characteristics and scythed limbs saw the Cryptothralls tear through Gravis armour and flesh alike. Top tip: get your Cryptothralls in close and keep a Cryptek nearby. Space Marines players: shoot them. Shoot them quickly."

Gee it's almost like the Murderbuckets slice up the Marines should they have gotten into melee somehow. Funny that, especially since the Marines have 0 close combat weapons that matter here.

Except, mathematically, they don't do that. In optimal circumstances, the 'murderbuckets' do 1 wound (edit: woops, missed the attacks doubling- 2 wounds) to the eradicators in melee. Their pistols do a little more- they _might_ help the unit kill one whole eradicator and a put a wound on another. That isn't particularly dangerous.

And playing out the ranged obliteration is just a waste of time, because obviously they do that. So if that's the kind of thing they're going to show on saturday- vastly overstating the dangers of a unit and presenting obvious win scenarios, that isn't worth watching.


As a cheap bodyguard to keep a cryptek alive, the thralls might have value. As assault models, seriously whatever.

Voss wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/29/this-weekend-indomitus-face-off/

So this is happening. Not a full battle report, but a 'face off' of various units.

Amazingly, 3 meltaguys with 24" assault melta weapons that can double tap can kill two melee necron models.
But if they're magically in combat, gravis armor 'stands up like paper.' Except... looking at the math... not really. 6 attacks, 4 hit, S5 vs T5 so 2 wound, save is reduced to 4+, so 1 wound. Gosh, that 9 wound unit is _really_ threatened. Add the pistols in and they might kill a dude. In a weird universe where getting a 5" move model into melee combat is a reasonable thing.

As a preview of things to see on Saturday, that's really not engaging.

With their buffs up and pistols they kill one pretty reliably. It just isn't a likely scenario to ever happen.

6 attacks
4 hits
2 wounds
1 failed save per Thrall

2 shots
4/3 hits
2/3 wounds
4/9 failed saves per Thrall

So, if we give the Thralls first swing in combat, it'd go like this:

12 attacks
8 hits
4 wounds
2 failed saves

The Marines swing back, for...

10 attacks
20/3 hits
20/9 wounds
20/27 failed saves

Assuming Living Metal is unchanged, that means that the Thralls can survive combat indefinitely, especially since the Marines lose three attacks on later rounds of combat.

So, top of T1, 2 wounds dealt.
Bottom 2 more wounds.
Top of T2, you get an extra 8/9 from the pistols, for 4 and 8/9 total. Then 2 more from combat.
Bottom of T2, 2 more wounds, for about 9.

Whereas the Eradicators one-shot these guys from 24" away, even if they had to advance.

6 shots
3 hits
2 wounds
2 failed saves-admittedly, they have about a 30% chance of one surviving because of a 1 on damage, but still.